The prevailing theme in The Guest and Shooting an Elephant is the effect of respect on morality. In the former, the main character Daru exhibits a great deal of respect and hospitality to the Arab, especially considering the circumstances. In the latter, the Burmans exhibit no respect to the police officer in the event of the elephant display, or in his day to day life. These opposite scenarios have a distinct effect on the morality of the main characters. Respect has a distinct effect on morality which differs depending on if respect is being strived for or shown.
The British police officer in Shooting an Elephant had never been respected by the Burman natives a day in his life. He was regularly mocked and cheated, even by the religious students of Burma, simply because he was one of the many enforcers of their imposed oppressor’s government. When the elephant went on a “must”, he found himself in an interesting position. The very natives who had always jeered and spat at him were cheering him on. Suddenly, he is faced with the choice between his personal morality and the ever so f...
Every day, each individual will look back on decisions he or she have made and mature from those experiences. Though it takes time to realize these choices, the morals and knowledge obtained from them are priceless. In George Orwell’s nonfictional essay, “Shooting an Elephant”, a young Orwell was stationed in Burma for the British imperial forces, tasked to deal with an elephant who destroyed various parts of the village Moulmein while its owner was away. Backed by second thoughts and a crowd of thousands, he finds himself shooting the elephant and reflecting that it was not justified; however, it was a choice pushed by his duty and the people. Written with a fusion of his young and old self’s outlook on shooting the elephant, Orwell’s essay is a sensational read that captivates his audience and leaves them questioning his decision.
Therefore, without friction, the story would be uninteresting to the reader. Arguments, disputes, and struggles are the main causes of conflict. However, there are two categories which conflict falls under: individual and group conflict. Individual conflict revolves around man vs. man and man vs. self. The first sign of conflict in “Shooting an Elephant” represents man vs. self: “In Moulmein, in lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people – the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me” (Orwell 619). The importance of man vs. self-conflict in “Shooting an Elephant” is used to affect the reader’s emotions. For this reason, the reader feels compassionate towards the sub-divisional police officer. Man vs. man conflict is between the officer and the Burmese citizens: “a nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way, the crowd yelled with hideous laughter” (Orwell 620). There are several types of conflict and they each have a significant
“Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell demonstrates one man's moralistic battle between his own belief of preservation of life against that of the crowd of natives which spur him to kill the beast. The author is incited in his actions by the large, unanimous crowd looming eagerly behind him. The sheer size of the group of Burmese natives can create an illusion of strength in numbers that can be hard to fight. The author knew, on one hand, that the conclusion to shoot the beast is immoral, however, from a social standpoint, agreement with the group meant survival in their territory. Failure to comply with what is expected could result in punishment in the form of embarrassment. The author writes “to come all that way, rifle in ...
Through this we see that the author’s point of view is someone who understands that the events that took place that morning in Burma, were not humane and degrading.
Essay, artistic choices, and relationship between facts and artistry. The author joined the Indian Imperial Police as a colonial policeman in Moulmein, lower Burma, located in the part of the British Empire. This story took place in the late 1920s or early 1930s (Orwell, 1996, p.150). The story explains a culture conflict between the British (subjugator) and the Burmese (subjugated). Few British are present nevertheless the British rule, and the narrator, as sub-divisional police officer, is an agent of that rule. This contradiction is part of the setting, as is the local resentment against the British presence. Burmese hates the narrator and manifest this hatred by deception rather than directly. The Burmese would not raise a riot, but would let the British know how they felt. The author stated if a European woman goes through the bazaars alone somebody would probably...
George Orwell the author of "Shooting an Elephant" wrote this story to show the real side of Imperialism. George wanted everyone who read this story of what he experienced and saw from Imperial rule. Now he said " Theoretically — and secretly, of course — I was all for the Burmese (1)", which states he isn't the bad guy the Burmese see him to be. Therefore proves his point that Imperialism makes it seem like every person that is not controlled by it that they must be the white men of the Earth. So that's why he talks about his experiences, because Imperialism takes your life away just like that elephants life was taken away. Because it broke free of its chains holing it in its place.
A police officer in the British Raj, the supposedly 'unbreakable'; ruling force, was afraid. With his gun aimed at a elephant's head, he was faced with the decision to pull the trigger. That officer was George Orwell, and he writes about his experience in his short story, 'Shooting an Elephant';. To save face, he shrugged it off as his desire to 'avoid looking the fool'; (George Orwell, 283). In truth, the atmosphere of fear and pressure overwhelmed him. His inner struggle over the guilt of being involved in the subjugation of a people added to this strain, and he made a decision he would later regret enough to write this story.
The quest for power is one which has been etched into the minds of men throughout history. However, it can be said that true power is not a result of one’s actions but comes from the following one’s own beliefs without being influenced by others. This principle sets up the story for Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell. The protagonist, Orwell himself, is a sub divisional police officer in Burma, a British colony. Orwell must try to find and use his inner power when he is faced with the decision of whether or not to kill an elephant which has ravaged the Burman’s homes. The state of power established through the imperialistic backdrop show that Orwell, as a colonist, should be in control. As well, the perspective and ideas given by Orwell show his true character and lessen the overall power set up for him. Lastly, the symbols shown are representations of traditional forms of power, but take on different implications in the story. In Shooting an Elephant, George Orwell uses setting, characterization and symbols to show that true power comes from following the dictates of one’s conscience.
The character, himself, is part of the British rule and is supposed to have all of the power. The Burmese, though, dangle the power in front of him. He is weak and unsure of himself, stating that he “wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it” (60). The character is not able to stand up for what he believes in -- that is, not shooting the elephant. There is a back and forth struggle in his mind about whether or not the elephant needs to be killed. Orwell’s character is fully aware that it is wrong and immoral to shoot an innocent creature, but eventually secedes to the demands of the Burmese, attempting to prove his cooperation and loyalty to those watching. In a way, the Burmese represent the pressures of society. Because of this, the audience can sympathize with the main character. There are always times when we, the readers, are unsure of ourselves, but we eventually make a decision. Whether we make the decision for ourselves or are assisted by others, in the end, we must take responsibility for our own actions. In a broader sense, Orwell’s character represents the internal conflict that everyone faces: should we conform to society or should we be our own
Like the elephant, the empire is dominant. The elephant, an enormous being in the animal kingdom, represents the British Empire in its magnitude. The size represents power as it is assumed that the two are insuppressible. Also, the elephant and the British empire, both share hideousness in the effect it causes in Burma. To create a comparison between the elephant and the empire, the author describes the elephant as wild and terrorizing when the “elephant was ravaging the bazaar” (324); thus, it symbolizes the British Empire is restraining the economy of the Burmese. When the elephant kills the Indian laborer, it represents the British oppressing the Burmese. On the other hand, the elephant is a symbol of colonialism. Like the natives of Burma who have been colonized and who abuse Orwell, the elephant has a destructive behavior by being provoked and oppressed “it had been chained up” (324). Despite the fact of its aggressive behavior and the Burmese’ more astute rebelliousness could be undeniably good things, they are making their best given the oppressive conditions, both the Burmese and the elephant have to endure. Also, the elephant symbolizes the economy of the oppressor, as well as the oppressed. This animal is a “working elephant” (326) in Burma, and for the colonial power. The Burmese are also working animals because they are hard workers and involuntarily are following the rules of the British empire.
He was experiencing what it was like to represent someone he did not want to be. He wanted the Burmese people to like him but he still needed to represent the British as a police officer. With his job duties as an officer, he had to react to the elephant getting loose. He had to be a leader and figure out how to handle the situation that was unfolding. Once the elephant was found it was no longer a threat, however, he was still expected to do something because the elephant had killed a man. He had to go against his moral decision not to kill the elephant just to keep from looking like a fool to the people. He was able to justify his decision in shooting the elephant because a man was
...an elephant for killing a coolie because an elephant was worth more than any damn Coringhee coolie” showing that not only do they think its a shame to kill an elephant, but they are describing the indian as less human than the elephant. None of the officers were present when the main character had decided to shoot the elephant and didn’t see that he was going to make a fool of himself. The shot to the elephant was the end of imperialism in the story and that the narrative was just a puppet of the Burmese by the end.
Like the elephant, the empire is dominant. The elephant, an enormous being in the animal kingdom, represents the British Empire in its magnitude. The size represents power as it is assumed that the two are insuppressible. Also, the elephant and the British empire, both share hideousness in the effect it causes in Burma. To create a comparison between the elephant and the empire, the author describes the elephant as wild and terrorizing when the “elephant was ravaging the bazaar” (324); thus, it symbolizes the British Empire is restraining the economy of the Burmese. When the elephant kills the Indian laborer, it represents the British oppressing the Burmese. On the other hand, the elephant is a symbol of colonialism. Like the natives of Burma who have been colonized and who abuse Orwell, the elephant has a destructive behavior by being provoked and oppressed “it had been chained up” (324). Despite the fact of its aggressive behavior and the Burmese’ more astute rebelliousness could be undeniably good things, they are doing their best given the oppressive conditions, both the Burmese and the elephant have to endure. Also, the elephant symbolizes the economy of the oppressor, as well as the oppressed. This animal is a “working elephant” (326) in Burma, and for the colonial power. The Burmese are also working animals because they are hard workers and involuntarily are following the rules of the British empire.
"Shooting an Elephant" is perhaps one of the most anthologized essays in the English language. It is a splendid essay and a terrific model for a theme of narration. The point of the story happens very much in our normal life, in fact everyday. People do crazy and sometimes illegal moves to get a certain group or person to finally give them respect. George Orwell describes an internal conflict between his personal morals and his duty to his country to the white man's reputation. The author's purpose is to explain the audience (who is both English and Burmese) about the kind of life he is living in Burma, about the conditions, circumstances he is facing and to tell the British Empire what he think about their imperialism and his growing displeasure for the imperial domination of British Empire.
After calling for an elephant rifle, the narrator finds a crowd beginning to form as he approaches the creature. His objective was never to kill the now peaceful creature, but with the hot glare on him he became subdue to their wishes. The Burmese people were hungry and wanted entertainment, and the narrator wanted to ease the tensions between the two groups for at least the time being. He did not kill the elephant because it was the righteous thing to do, but he did it to avoid looking like a fool. The massive animal, now powerless, took nearly a half hour to die. The narrator’s actions were justified due to the Indians death, but his regret stems from the realization that he too was powerless and his actions were only the result of his